Hard mode, don't mention cars.
- barely any grocery stores
- lots of wasted vertical space
- lots of ugly and wasteful lawns
- culture of one-upping neighbors with new cars, pools etc.
- authoritarian nuclear families living isolated (enforced in the physical structure itself)
- mayos
Barely any grocery stores has been the opposite of my experience. When I lived in the suburbs I had about 8 different supermarkets no more than 15 min from my house.
When I lived in a large city, there was one Trader Joe’s and anything else would have been a 30 min drive out of the city.
That seems strange to me, there are 4 large grocery stores within a 15 minute walk of where I live now (in a city) and few smaller stores that sell groceries as well. Cities can have shit development too I guess.
I think that might have more to do with malls and misc luxury shops taking over urban areas but I could be wrong
authoritarian nuclear families living isolated
I need to ask you again, please stop talking about my dad on hexbear.
one hour old account, whole thread is op getting pissy and stereotyping rural people :thonk:
So like mao or lenin? Because they did relocate the massive feudal population to city to improve the quality of life.
the basic question of how to organize living space is a good one, but this idea that everyones gonna live in a highly urbanized area and non-urban areas will be completely retaken by nature is irrational. We still need agriculture, we still need resources.
But this whole thread is you insulting anyone who responds legitimately and calling anyone who lives outside a city a cousin fucker. So why don't you do everyone a favor and post a photograph of that sweet, sweet hog
north american suburbs are very different to suburbs pretty much anywhere else
I grew up in rural west virginia, I honestly don't have any experience with suburbs. My hatred for rural backwaters is much higher than your hate for suburban housing developments. I prefer urban living and believe everyone should be forced to live in a city. No one should have to shit in an outhouse, or drink straight groundwater, or be forced to participate in farming at an early age. Suburban people can commute to the cities for the things they can't get in whitepicketfenceville. Rural people can't. I support getting rid of both of them.
No one should have to shit in an outhouse, or drink straight groundwater, or be forced to participate in farming at an early age.
what you're describing here is rural poverty, not rural lifestyle in general. i agree that rural poverty should be eradicated; the way to do this is not to tear people from the countryside and force them to live in cities in some insane reverse-pol pot adventure
My hatred for rural backwaters is much higher than your hate for suburban housing developments
that isn't hard what with me not having any because i'm not a yank
No one should have to shit in an outhouse, or drink straight groundwater
not a thing where i live, our countryside has running water
It depends on where you live tbh if you have water connected to the municipal watersystem. Many people in the US drink well water straight from the aquifer but some rural people have pipes connected to their house. Don't get me started on septic tanks, out houses, and plumbing.
Depends on rural living arrangement I suppose with communal stuff, it doesn’t have to be this way. Just because small villages were supplanted by big boss having their slaves and/or hired workers living separately doesn’t mean the thing was wrong.
also that seems mighty classist of rural people, don’t become haughty liberal for people feeding you.
Guess what class exists and rural people are above city people on the hierarchy, if we collectivise the farms rural people will cease to exist, urbanism won't.
The fuck they will? Unless you have some unknown advancements in agriculture, people will still have to work there
Clearly, we shall develop sufficiently advanced high speed public transit capable of commuting once we eliminate the scourge of ever being more than 10 feet away from another human being at any point in time by creating urban centers so dense that OP pales in comparison.
how are we both uneducated cousin fucking hicks who live in our own filth and an exploitative powerful class
The farmers are the exploiting class, the rednecks and hillbillies live on their land. You honestly think those houses you see in the country side with the fields of corn and wheat and soy behind them are actually owned by the people in the house next to it? 9/10 times its land leased by a farmer and the people in the house are renters. Also farmers are rich dumb cousin fuckers bred by the government. The two statements are true.
What are you talking about the soviet union had huge collective farm programs, the trade union movement developed heavily around agricultural workers
And you don't find farmers living in homesteads, they lived in the city and the fields were close by. They literally relocated them for efficiency.
As someone who lived there, it was not cities, more like outgrowth of villages with maybe 300-500 people, local nurse, 1-2 shops and train station
That's not rural, was there apartments of any kind? How far is the spread between buildings?
No apartments, small houses in russian style, maybe 60-100 feet apart, with fields outside.
Such small villages usually had some small factory/farm, and young people (later than in cities though, like 10-12), would hop on train to bigger city for school, younger education was done by like 1 teacher, with generic education, like writing/reading/literature/math. (But our education structure is also very different, that’s basically all kids learn at first). Bigger villages have/had bigger schools, with more differentiated teachers and full education available, or at least generic one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujian_tulou
apartment style housing is in no way contradictory with rural living or farming. The Hakka people have been using packed earth techniques to construct ecologically sustainable communal housing divided into what could be considered apartments.
You don't have to do anything about rural living. The number of people living in the country side has been declining year over year for like a century all over the world. Capitalism forces people off the land and out of rural areas to the cities for work. Suburban living though is another beast.
grew up in suburb. not diverse enough. not enough "melting pots" where people just fuck around in the same area. everyone is so temporarily in public spaces and always retreating to their little home, it's nearly impossible to build community. where i grew up it was impossible to live without a car; the nearest business to my house was 2 miles away walking on a dirt shoulder of a 55mph road. suburbs breed conservative thought and are constantly afraid of crime/others. the only perks of suburban living were cosplaying as rural living - exploring abandoned things, getting away from crowds, views of the night sky, minor conveniences like that.
Like I think we can agree suburbs are the worst out of the 3 but rural living is just as bad, homeschooling, religious fundamentalism, property ownership, destroying nature to make money, the whole idea of go to the country and farm has done irreparable damage to the ecology of where I grew up. Urban areas could produce just as much food if not more than rural farms ever could. Rural people are the biggest reactionaries and liberals on the planet, they should be relocated to the city.
Rural people are the biggest reactionaries and liberals on the planet, they should be relocated to the city.
i don't want them here. they don't want to be here.
Counterpoint: Malls don't allow you to drive right up to every storefront, they centralize and mix together a lot of things, provide space to congregate that is otherwise sparse, and at least for a few decades they were tailored to be a place where you could simply exist without paying money.
A mall with a public transit hub instead of a gigantic parking lot would simply be a good idea.
They aren't inherently bad. The problem is bad urban design, which sorry, is because of cars. You can have dense, walkable villages and suburbs just like you can have sprawling, car dependent "cities". You can have wonderful countryside right outside your doorstep in a small town, as long as everyone lives tightly clustered in the village. This is basically how everyone lived 300 years ago. A couple thousand people in 1 square km (everything within a 15 min walk), then 10-25 SQ km of nature and farms vs now where everyone encloses off their own little 1/4 acre, and then naturally you need roads to get around which encourages further sprawl.
What is to be done is to do basically the opposite of now - enforce things like "maximum road sizes" to limit the amount of crap Not Place and maximize how closely people live together. Cars create a negative feedback loop where roads = wasted spaced = more spread out = more cars to get around = more cars and sprawl. Rural transit access can be done with buses, motorcycles, etc.
The amount of resources consumed versus population density reaches its worst ratio in the suburban lifestyle.
rural and suburban are entirely different beasts. I've lived rural and I've lived in towns, the big difference is that rent is higher in towns but jobs are harder to come by in rural areas. Rural living can be nice I see trees regularly and get to just be in nature
I live rural and I bike and walk frankly the only issue with it is the way people drive in rural areas.
I can't afford the rent of living in the city. I would call an ambulance if i need to go to the hospital it would cost the state like £20 in gasoline that's not a big deal.
How about the cost of maintaining the roads and powerlines and infrastructure to keep people like you living in a place no human should live. Leave the forest to nature.
people have lived where I live for thousands of years. they were still going to need to maintain the roads so people can travel between cities jackass and the local roads are maintained by the local government
TRAINS. Why should we make them stop for rural backwaters? Just move, it's the state's job to aid you in that.
what's your issue with people in rural areas did you get everything you know about us from the film deliverance or something. stops in rural areas allow trains to changeover and adds redundancy in the system
Im from bumfuck west virginia, we had to drink untreated ground water, we burned our trash, I was homeschooled for a significant portion of my childhood. Stop romanticising rural living, raising a kid in those conditions is child abuse, that's why I don't think where you live should be a choice. Where I was I couldn't just take a train or a bus or a taxi, you had to own a car or a horse. And the horse thing has to do with the Amish who I hate with a passion and are no different from the Russian kulaks. Confiscate all their land, relocate the hill people to the city.
it sounds like you had a personal terrible experience growing up in poverty in a rural area and that's massively affecting how you think about the whole issue. I have to say though you get some pretty bad situations in urban areas too the issue is the poverty
And wouldn't it be easier to solve all those urban problems if EVERYONE had to live in an urban area? I'm not saying f urban living is cheap or close to nature or the apartments are very big but it's for the benefit of the collective why I support it. Because the only way human society can change is if we live in the same material conditions and that can only happen by destroying rural and suburban areas.
someone has to grow the food, maintain the railways and other infrastructure that passes between the cities, etc.. we can't all live in cities. like dense housing is good and I prefer city life but I also get why some people prefer the peace in the valleys and in the mountains.
They prefer it because they exhibit anti social behaviors, living outside a city is bad for your health. No emergency services nearby, it's isolation. It should be illegal to build a house in the boonies.
as it stands, living inside a city is also bad for your health and, again, not everyone can live in a city. cities have a wide footprint that support them - this will only get worse as global supply chains collapse and localities are forced to become more self-sufficient in the wake of climate change.
All human habitation has a footprint, it's best just to concentrate it into a single area than have it spread out. It's not that living in a city is bad for your health, it's from the fumes of vehicles. Take that out of the equation it's better.
the point is that large footprint requires people living outside the city to sustain it. "concentrating" it doesn't reduce the acreage required to grow the food to support the population living inside the city.
Yeah and it's bad cities require people outside of them to sustain them, they should be completely self sufficient and that requires increasing density and moving agriculture into urban areas. It would be significantly easier if we cut out farm animals and specific crops like sugar or coffee from people's diets.
ok when this fantasy tech actually exists we can have this discussion
gonna grow food on the sidewalks chief? have you heard of "carrying capacity"?
I can't believe I'm hearing the grow food argument here of all places.
yeah why tf would people want to eat? Fucking libs, amirite?
I’m sorry you’ve had this experience :meow-hug:
But again, in realms of fantasy - it just doesn’t have to be this way. It’s easier to manage rural, eh, reactionary tendencies, then just wave a magic wand and burn the whole thing while completely redesigning agriculture.
as humans we harm nature when we live in it.
definitely not true, not generally anyway. the modern, western-dominated form of human civilisation is absolutely harmful to the environment around us, views it as a resource to be exploited rather than a gift to be cherished. but humans haven't been living in such destructive ways for most of history, and there are still hundreds of millions of people around the world living in ways that not only don't harm the natural world, but actually support it in a symbiotic relationship.
this is how indigenous peoples all across the world have lived for thousands of years, managing and supporting the environments that in turn support them in a sustainable and stable way, and it's why indigenous rights to exist and maintain their ways of life are wrapped up with ecological issues too. it's why all across the world they're the ones getting brutalised and killed by extractive western industry that encroaches on their land and consumes everything in its path. it is important to not project the flaws of western, capitalist lifestyles on to the whole human species.
It's not just modern western civilization though. Mass extinctions occurred wherever prehistoric humans migrated, and indigenous peoples frequently used slash and burn techniques and other agricultural methods that are definitely not eco-friendly. Obviously their impact still pales in comparison to capitalism, and they had a much more spiritual relationship with nature than us alienated proles, but humans are still an invasive species in general.
